Implicit motives and hemispheric processing differences are critical for understanding. personality disorders: A Commentary on Hopwood

Transcription

1 Schultheiss commentary 1 Running head: Schultheiss commentary Implicit motives and hemispheric processing differences are critical for understanding personality disorders: A Commentary on Hopwood Oliver C. Schultheiss Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany Body text word count: 993 In press, European Journal of Personality Please cite as: Schultheiss, O. C. (in press). Implicit motives and hemispheric processing differences are critical for understanding personality disorders: A Commentary on Hopwood. European Journal of Personality.

2 Schultheiss commentary 2 Abstract In this commentary, I highlight the role of implicit motivational needs for power and affiliation and their interaction with hemispheric laterality in shaping adaptive and maladaptive interpersonal behavior as it occurs in normal personality processes and personality disorders.

3 Schultheiss commentary 3 Implicit motives and hemispheric processing differences are critical for understanding personality disorders: A Commentary on Hopwood Hopwood (this issue) calls attention to the interpersonal dynamics characterizing personality and personality disorders. In my response to Hopwood s stimulating target article, I will focus on two issues: the role of motives in interpersonal dynamics and their interaction with hemispheric processing differences in adaptive and maladaptive personality processes. 1. Implicit motives and interpersonal dynamics Implicit motives are dispositions to experience specific classes of incentives as rewarding and corresponding classes of disincentives as aversive (Schultheiss & Köllner, in press). For instance, those high in the need for power (npower) but not those low -- enjoy having impact on other people and respond with negative affect to others trying to have an impact on them. Similarly, individuals with a high need for affiliation (naffiliation) but not those low in this motive cherish the experience of close, harmonious relationships and suffer when rejected. Motive measures were derived by studying the effects of motivational arousal on the content of picture stories (McClelland, 1958; Winter, 1999). They therefore fulfill a central criterion of modern validity theory: that a measure reflect causal effects of changes in the attribute it targets (Borsboom, Mellenbergh, & van Heerden, 2004). This sets the motive measures apart from most other measures in personality psychology, for which causal effects of the targeted attribute on the measure have not been documented (this also applies to the trait measures that Hopwood suggests as a starting point for research on personality disorders; see Boag, 2015).

4 Schultheiss commentary 4 npower and naffiliation are based on social incentives and disincentives, color peoples interpretation of corresponding incentive cues, and influence their own social signals and behavior directed towards others. In other words, motives play a key role in the interpersonal dynamics of behavior. While Hopwood acknowledges this in his model, measures of npower and naffiliation should not be equated with consciously represented goals (also represented in Hopwood s model) or self-attributed motivational needs. Metaanalyses and studies with large samples consistently show that motive measures based on content coding have almost no variance overlap ( 2%) with goal and motive measures based on declarative measures (Köllner & Schultheiss, 2014; Rawolle, Schultheiss, & Schultheiss, 2013). Hence the term implicit motives. Stanton, Hall and Schultheiss (2010) presented a systematic framework for understanding the role of motives in interpersonal behavior, called motivational field theory (MFT). Like Hopwood s model, MFT is based on earlier work by Wiggins (e.g., Wiggins & Trobst, 1999). MFT holds that interpersonal signaling of motivational states and interpersonal behavior occur along the dimensions of dominance and affiliation. npower determines to what extent signals sent by an interaction partner are interpreted as submissive (rewarding) or dominant (aversive). naffiliation determines to what extent signals sent by another are interpreted as friendly (rewarding) or hostile (aversive). Individuals high in npower are responsive to signals captured by the dominance axis and individuals high in naffiliation are responsive to signals varying along the affiliation axis. MFT is supported by studies showing, for instance, that npower predicts sensitivity for dominance-related interpersonal cues (e.g. Donhauser, Rösch, & Schultheiss, 2015; Wang, Liu, & Yang, 2014) and the acquisition and execution of

5 Schultheiss commentary 5 behavior aimed at maximizing one s own influence on others and minimizing others influence on oneself (e.g., Stoeckard, Strick, Bijleveld, & Aarts, 2016, 2018; Schultheiss & Schiepe-Tiska, 2013). Similarly, naffiliation predicts sensitivity for others signals of friendliness or distance (Kordik, Eska, & Schultheiss, 2012), nonverbal behavior in social interaction situations (Hagemayer, Dufner, & Dennissen, 2016), and negative emotional responses to social isolation (Hofer & Busch, 2011). 2. The role of hemispheric differences Although motives influence interpersonal behavior and thus may contribute to the onset and maintenance of personality disorders, they do not represent maladaptive dispositions per se. So what determines whether motives translate into normal or abnormal interpersonal functioning? To answer this question, I draw on evidence for brain laterality as a moderator of motive-driven interpersonal dynamics, as viewed through the lens of McGilchrist s (2009) theory of interhemispheric dynamics. Motive research consistently shows that individuals with a propensity to engage attentional functions of the right hemisphere (RH), indexed by a high level of activity inhibition (AI) assessed in picture stories (Schultheiss, Riebel, & Jones, 2009), show more socially adaptive behavior than individuals with a propensity to engage attentional functions of the left hemisphere (LH), as reflected in low AI. For instance, in the former npower predicts management success as reflected in high organizational clarity and team morale, whereas in the latter npower is associated with a self-aggrandizing leadership style (McClelland & Burnham, 2003). Similarly, whereas in the former naffiliation predicts non-violent conflict tactics in intimate relationships, in the latter naffiliation predicts high levels of physical and psychological partner abuse (Mason & Blankenship,

6 Schultheiss commentary ; see Schultheiss et al, 2009, for more examples). Such findings suggest that motives are particularly likely to contribute to behavior associated with personality disorders in individuals prone to engage LH functions. This is consistent with McGilchrist s (2009) hypothesis, based on a large neuropsychological literature, that individuals who get stuck in an LH information processing mode (as opposed to those with an RH-favoring mode and/or fluid interhemispheric information exchange) have a peculiar maladaptive mindset. It is characterized, for instance, by reality distortion through denial of expectation-violating information, an inability to deal with ambiguity, a tendency to view and treat others as mere tools for the advancement of one s interests and goals, and a profound lack of empathy. I contend that the literature reviewed by McGilchrist points toward specific, socially adaptive functions of the RH, which, if weakened or underdeveloped, may contribute to an LH-processing propensity and the maladaptive interpersonal consequences associated with it. McGilchrist s hypothesis is thus compatible with, and helps to make sense of, the moderating effects of AI on the expression of implicit motives in interpersonal behavior. It also points toward a treasure trove of neuropsychological information on hemispheric processing asymmetries that may be of particular importance to research on personality disorders.

7 Schultheiss commentary 7 References Boag, S. (2015). Personality assessment, construct validity, and the significance of theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, doi: Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), doi: [pii] / X Donhauser, P. W., Rösch, A. G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2015). The implicit need for power predicts recognition speed and accuracy for dynamic changes in facial expressions of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 39, Hagemeyer, B., Dufner, M., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2016). Double dissociation between implicit and explicit affiliative motives: A closer look at socializing behavior in dyadic interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, doi: Hofer, J., & Busch, H. (2011). When the needs for affiliation and intimacy are frustrated: Envy and indirect aggression among German and Cameroonian adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, Hopwood, C. (in press). Interpersonal dynamics in personality and personality disorders. European Journal of Personality. Köllner, M., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2014). Meta-analytic evidence of low convergence between implicit and explicit measures of the needs for achievement, affiliation, and power. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(826). doi: /fpsyg

8 Schultheiss commentary 8 Kordik, A., Eska, K., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2012). Implicit need for affiliation is associated with increased corrugator activity in a non-positive, but not in a positive social interaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress, and abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, McClelland, D. C. (1958). Methods of measuring human motivation. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society: A method of assessment and study (pp. 7-42). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the Great Motivator. Harvard Business Review, 81(1), McGilchrist, I. (2009). The master and his emissary. The divided brain and the making ofthe Western world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rawolle, M., Schultheiss, M., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2013). Relationships between implicit motives, self-attributed motives, and personal goal commitments. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(923). doi: /fpsyg Schultheiss, O. C., & Köllner, M. G. (in press). Implicit motives. In O. P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (4 ed.). New York: Guilford. Schultheiss, O. C., Riebel, K., & Jones, N. M. (2009). Activity inhibition: A predictor of lateralized brain function during stress? Neuropsychology, 23,

9 Schultheiss commentary 9 Schultheiss, O. C., & Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2013). The role of the dorsoanterior striatum in implicit motivation: The case of the need for power. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(141). doi: /fnhum Stanton, S. J., Hall, J. L., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2010). Properties of motive-specific incentives. In O. C. Schultheiss & J. C. Brunstein (Eds.), Implicit motives (pp ). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Stoeckart, P. F., Strick, M., Bijleveld, E., & Aarts, H. (2016). The implicit power motive predicts action selection. Psychological Research, doi: /s z Stoeckart, P. F., Strick, M., Bijleveld, E., & Aarts, H. (2018). The implicit power motive predicts decisions in line with perceived instrumentality. Motivation and Emotion, 42(3), doi: /s Wang, J., Liu, L., & Yan, J. H. (2014). Implicit power motive effects on the ERP processing of emotional intensity in anger faces. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, Wiggins, J. S., & Trobst, K. K. (1999). The fields of interpersonal behavior. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2 ed., pp ). New York: Guilford. Winter, D. G. (1999). Linking personality and "scientific" psychology: The development of empirically derived Thematic Apperception Test measures. In L. Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative images: The Thematic Apperception Test and the art of projection (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.